Since the mid-1960's plaque has been identified as playing at least a major role in causing dental problems both with respect to caries and periodontal disease. However, the actual mechanism by which plaque operates is still subject to conjecture. Plaque, a film of mucus which is produced in the mouth, is a known medium which can harbor bacteria both on the tooth and adjacent gum tissue. It is generally recognized that removal of plaque is essential for promulgating oral hygiene.
Although substantial research and product engineering has occurred over the last 20 years with a view towards effectively removing plaque, certain difficulties still exist. The following prior art describes the ongoing efforts of others attempting to solve this longstanding problem which has yet evaded solution, and these prior art citations are included to discharge applicant's acknowledged duty to disclose prior art with which he is familiar:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,265,258, Eaton, May 5, 1981 PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,070,815, Negishi, et al., Jan. 31, 1978 PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,523,600, Donovan, June 18, 1985 PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 2,381,142, Stonehill, Aug. 7, 1945 PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,896,824, Thornton, July 29, 1975
Generally, the techniques for plaque removal are predicated on two principles. The first involves plaque removal through "washing" the plaque from the mouth area by means of liquids. Second, plaque removal has been attempted by mechanical brushing.
With respect to washing, certain mouthwashes are commercially marketed without prescription which purport to be effective in plaque control. These however are not registered with the Food and Drug Administration, and are merely listed as cosmetics. Available research data suggests that these mouthwashes are less than completely effective. A second known liquid, Peridex, is available under prescription and is a known plaque-removing liquid, but is objectionable to the extent that side effects are exhibited in some individuals. These side effect include adverse teeth staining and affecting one's taste perception. Even with an effective liquid, the film-like quality of plaque thwarts highly efficient removal through mere mouthwashing, and is singularly ineffective when tryng to remove plaque in the sulcus area of one's mouth, i.e., the narrow trough-like gap between one's tooth and the gum tissue. This is also critical interproximally (in between the teeth) since this is where most periodontal disease and caries occur.
To a certain extent, plaque formation is not a problem on tooth surfaces that can receive direct mechanical contact with an instrument such as a brush which effectively breaks up the plaque film and therefore allows the plaque and its associated entrained bacteria to be carried away. Many brush manufacturers claim their bristles will go below the gum (in the sulcus) on the buccal and lingual--not interproximally, however, thus, along those areas where direct brush contact is possible, plaque buildup is less of a problem. However, brushes still are quite ineffective in removing plaque both along the area immediately below the gum line, i.e., the sulcus and interproximally.
As knowledge with respect to the role that plaque plays in dental disease has grown, so too has the change in the design of various types of dental floss. While dental floss was once used substantially as a toothpick for the removal of entrained matter caught between teeth, various changes in dental floss appearance, praticularly in the last few years reflect the belief that dental floss can be used to remove plaque in areas normally inaccessible by any other means particularly when used daily. Most designs involve contouring the external configuration of nylon or polyethylene to form an abrasive surface which can break up the plaque film under the gum line and between teeth to solve the problem. Earlier attempts have included the use of fibers formed from silk, cotton, nylon or blends thereof.
All of these known prior art flossing structures are less than desirable in that they are either too abrasive which adversely effects the enamel on the tooth, are too sharp which can cause damage to the gum tissue by cutting the gums, or are ineffective in removing the plaque. Moreover, taking this floss under the gum actually causes pain and the patient, therefore, will not take floss under the gum to remove plaque in the normal 3 mm sulci.